Democracy: Part IV

Sometimes we get carried away by our own enthusiasm when we talk about the fantastic features of our magnificent domes. We tell people about the great strengths of the geodesic structures, in the face of terrific winds. We relay the experiences of dome owners near the San Andreas fault, whose domes have survived vicious quakes, while their neighbors’ houses collapsed into total ruin. We show them examples of how dome homes have survived in the face of impossible hurricanes, and came away unscathed.

Safe Homes

In fact, the domes that we represent have been structurally tested, and the structural engineering data developed by a highly trained structural engineer. I feel sure that all of the dome companies have done similar testing, with comparable results.

The engineering data showed that these domes will withstand winds in excess of 120 miles per hour, with a three-times safety factor. These data make the dome the safest of all structures. It is so, because it is highly unlikely that there may be winds on the earth’s surface of anywhere near this velocity.

These numbers are based on the dome being securely anchored to its foundation. The engineering clearly states that high winds create a wind foil effect not unlike that which occurs on the wing of an airplane, which could cause the dome, if it is not securely tied down, to try to fly away. On instruction from the structural engineer, when we first designed our dome, one of the details provided was that we make certain that the dome is securely anchored to the foundation.

When the dome is set on a crawl space, the builder is instructed to cover the exterior of the crawl space frame, paying particular attention to how the dome is anchored to its base. By enclosing the perimeter of the dome shell at the base, wind is prevented from getting under and lifting the dome from the foundation.

I have seen domes facing seaward, sitting about eight feet above the seashore, with wood piers, and the dome bottom exposed to the wind. It’s only a matter of time before this type of construction will fail in the face of a sufficient gale.

About ten years ago, a hurricane hit the Texas Gulf coast. A news photographer was flying down the coast, recording the images of total destruction. Lo and behold, with nothing but smashed homes on either side, stood a geodesic dome home, literally unscathed. This home was not on stilts, as are some structures that are placed along the seashore, but was sitting on a rigid foundation. Since that time, hundreds of stories have surfaced describing identical results in high wind situations.

Recently, TV commentator Ted Koppel, on national television, announced a great discovery. He had discovered a building that stood on one of the outer islands off the coast of North Carolina through a recent hurricane and received no damage. The building was a geodesic dome, but he never used the word. The dome sat on a concrete pad. The lower portion which raised the main dome body about eight feet above the beach shore was used as the garage.

This dome was total concrete, and it had come through that hurricane with only minor damage – a broken glass window. When the commentator went on to describe the dome, and tell all of its safety features, he still did not refer to it as a dome, but called it “an alternative building system.” It is a sad state when this critical information only makes it to the evening news. He, Koppel, treated it as though this were a great new concept in building design. What it does represent is one of the best kept secrets in today’s society.

The EEBA

An organization known as EEBA (Energy Efficient Building Association) was founded by the University of Maine, at Orono. This organization has for its foundation the development of energy efficient housing. They hold conferences periodically. Over the years, they have ignored the most energy efficient structure available, the dome. When one sees a highly educated and dedicated organization such as this, whose professed purpose is the development of efficient housing, leaving the dome out of the mix and their conferences, one wonders about the validity of their total commitment. We have tried unsuccessfully to get their attention over the past several years, but to no avail.

At what point are we going to do something real about our senseless waste of energy? Already developed and available is affordable housing that will cut our energy use in primary housing by at least 50 percent.

In addition, the gas-electric automobile, described in a recent excellent article by Gene Hopstra, is here that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in automobiles by at least 75 percent. The importance of checking these two areas is that they represent the greatest waste of our energy.

The sad part of this is that nothing new has to be invented. We only need to make the changes that are necessary to bring them about. Nothing new has to be developed or invented. Only the will.

Taking advantage of only these two items would insure that we, as human beings, can continue to populate the earth. Without major changes in our attitude toward the environment, we are bound to reach a point of no return – a point where it will be too late to correct the wrongs that have been done to the air we breath and the water we drink.

So, once again, I have doubts that Americans have the will to battle through the corporate jungle that is stopping these changes. If by some miracle we do, no doubt the geodesic dome home will finally become the housing of choice.